http://www.tobacco.org/newsfeed/state/ME.rss Latest top tobacco news headlines en-us http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5731a3.htm http://tobacco.org/news/274481.html Approximately 1 million persons in the United States receive long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) annually through the Medicare program, most often for smoking-related lung disease (1,2). At 2:10 a.m. on December 14, 2007, a fire occurred in a public housing project for the elderly in Westbrook, Maine. Approximately 60 residents were evacuated; six were transported to a hospital for smoke inhalation. The fire was caused unintentionally by a woman aged 57 years who was an overnight guest of a relative who lived in the housing project. The visitor had ignited the fire while simultaneously smoking and using an oxygen concentrator.* After this incident, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, in collaboration with three other states, attempted to determine 1) how often this type of event results in fatalities and 2) factors common to these incidents that might be amenable to prevention. This report describes the results of that study, which found that, during 2000--2007, of the 38 deaths identified in the four states, 37 occurred in private residences, and the median age of the decedents was 67 years. Prevention of this type of fatality is dependent on smoking cessation, careful assessment of the need for LTOT, and strategies to prevent injuries from fires, such as smoke alarms and sprinklers. Three other states (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma) agreed to join Maine in the study. Centers for Disease Control mmwrq@cdc.gov Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.nj.com/opinion/times/editorials/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1225862722102060.xml&coll=5 http://tobacco.org/news/274178.html It's a sad fact, but profits trump health concerns at Atlantic City's gaming palaces. Citing a worsening economy and plunging casino revenues due to stiff competition from slot parlors in Pennsylvania and New York, the Atlantic City Council last week overturned a temporary smoking ban that took effect Oct. 15. Mayor Scott Evans signed the measure shortly after it was passed by a 5-4 vote. Starting Nov. 16, smokers will again be allowed to puff away in the resort town's 11 casinos. . . . In this situation, workers' rights to a smoke-free workplace are emphatically more important than risking health consequences such as cancer. The dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke have been established beyond doubt. That is why smoking bans in public places have become more widespread. It would be a good idea to ban smoking in all public gambling sites. That way, everyone will breathe a little easier. Trenton Times Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:00:00 GMT http://www.theirregular.com/news/2008/1105/schools/056.html http://tobacco.org/news/274017.html WILTON -- CUT the Habit, a student-led film project organized by the Healthy Community Coalition and funded through a grant from the American Legacy Foundation, held a summer institute in July at Franklin Memorial Hospital. High school students from Jay, Livermore Falls, Mt. Abram and Mt. Blue attended the three-day training, where they learned about the health effects of tobacco, as well as how the tobacco industry (Big Tobacco) uses media to recruit replacement smokers. As part of the ongoing project, students will learn the basics of filmmaking from MPBN Executive Producer Chris Sweet, a graduate of Mt. Blue High School. They will work in school-based groups through the fall writing and filming their projects, with post-production work schedule for January and February. CUT the Habit will culminate in a film festival slated for the spring of 2009. The Irregular Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:00:00 GMT http://readingeagle.com/blog.aspx?bid=4&id=18114&t=Cigarette-marketing-only-partly-to-blame http://tobacco.org/news/272617.html The issue: Smokers sue tobacco companies for marketing that implied some cigarettes were safer than others. Our opinion: While the ads implied that the cigarettes were less toxic, smokers also share some responsibility. . . . we must point out that people have known for decades about the deadly consequences of smoking. Surgeon General Luther L. Terry released the landmark report on smoking and health on Jan. 11, 1964. In that document, which was based on more than 7,000 scientific articles, the surgeon general said flatly that cigarette smoking was responsible for a 70 percent increase in the mortality rate of smokers over nonsmokers. The report was front-page news in newspapers and the lead story on radio and television stations throughout the country — a bombshell, in Terry’s own words. The facts could not have been clearer . . . The popularity of cigarettes branded as low tar and low nicotine shows that people are aware of the risks and ignorant of them: They try to minimize the noxious effects of tar and nicotine but don’t realize that the effort is futile. It’s an error rooted in human nature, in our willingness to either lie to ourselves or avoid significant truths rather than make a difficult change. The power of the addiction is such that people were seduced by the implied promise of lower risk. Yes, the advertising was misleading, principally because it allows people to deceive themselves, but the responsibility doesn’t stop there. Reading Eagle Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/034328.html http://tobacco.org/news/272568.html A discarded cigarette is believed to have been the accidental cause of a Tuesday night fire that heavily damaged the Kentucky Fried Chicken-Taco Bell restaurant on Madison Avenue. Fire Chief Winton (Tom) Keene said Thursday that fire officials believe the discarded, still-lit cigarette ignited the bark mulch outside the back of the building. Maine Today Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.legaltalknetwork.com/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=15 http://tobacco.org/news/272495.html Will the U.S. Supreme Court dismiss a class action suit brought by smokers in Maine, who say they were misled into believing that "low tar" and "light" cigarettes are a healthier alternative to regular cigarettes? Arguments heard before the high court this week, pit tobacco giant, Phillip Morris against smokers. Law.com blogger and co-host, Bob Ambrogi welcomes Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, a nationally known whistleblower involving tobacco company, Brown & Williamson. Wigand's courageous story ultimately led to a landmark case against big tobacco, changes in cigarette advertising and was the basis for the movie, The Insider. He is now founder of SMOKE-FREE KIDS, Inc. Tony Mauro, Supreme Court correspondent for Legal Times and Law.com, also joins us to discuss this important case with insights from inside the courtroom. Legal Talk Network admin3@legaltalknetwork.com Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-a-rough-day-for-the-ftc/ http://tobacco.org/news/272487.html A hearing on claims of deception by cigarette companies in their advertising of “light” cigarettes led Monday to strongly worded complaints by Supreme Court Justices that, if consumers were misled, it was partly — maybe even mainly — the government’s fault. Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Antonin Scalia suggested that the Federal Trade Commission had known for years that those ads were founded on flawed claims, and did little or nothing about it. The comments came as the Court opened its new Term with the hearing in Altria Group, et al., v. Good, et al. (07-562). Justice Alito was the most blunt: “The FTC’s position seems to me incomprehensible,” he remarked to a lawyer for the Commission. “You’ve created this whole problem by, I think, passively approving the placement of these figures in the advertisements. And if they are misleading, then you have misled everybody who’s bought those cigarettes for a long time.” The lawyer speaking for the Commission and the Justice Department, Assistant to the Solicitor General Douglas Hallward-Dreimeier, tried to put the onus back on the tobacco industry, saying the companies knew as early as 1967 that its claims of low tar and nicotine in “light” smokes were not valid, yet failed to tell the FTC. But that argument did not dissuade Justice Scalia. “When did the Commission know this stuff? I had a case when I sat on the Court of Appeals, so it had to be before 1984…It’s been general knowledge for a long time, and the FTC has done nothing abput it.” SCOTUSBlog scotusblog.feedback@gmail.com (Lyle Denniston) Mon, 06 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-tobacco14-2008oct14,0,7309130.story http://tobacco.org/news/272458.html A tobacco company is an unsympathetic defendant in any lawsuit filed by smokers. But the dangers of smoking aren't the issue in a case now before the Supreme Court involving the parent company of Philip Morris USA, the manufacturer of Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights. A ruling against the company would be unfair and would undermine Congress' role in protecting public health. . . . Rather, former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, representing the tobacco company, told the court that by complying with the federal labeling law, Philip Morris was exempt from state regulation of cigarette packaging. He's right. The federal labeling act says: "No requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under state law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarette." . . . Cigarettes are a public health scourge. Opponents of smoking understandably take advantage of any legal port in a storm to deprive tobacco companies of what they regard as ill-gotten gains. But this case involves an important principle: that Congress has the authority to establish national standards, whether the subject is the safety of a medical drug or the adequacy of a cigarette health warning. Sometimes a political trade-off is involved: Members of Congress from states that want to regulate more harshly in a particular area agree to a less rigorous national standard that will have the advantage of applying to states that don't want to regulate at all. Congress isn't required to adopt such compromises. Indeed, it could leave regulation of cigarette advertising -- and other activities -- completely to the states. But it hasn't done so. If consumers of "light" cigarettes feel cheated, they should petition Congress to strengthen the national warning label. They have no right to relief from the courts. Los Angeles Times Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://cbs2.com/national/supreme.court.tobacco.2.834115.html http://tobacco.org/news/272157.html The role of the Federal Trade Commission could be important in the outcome. The FTC is only now proposing to change rules that for years condoned the use of "light" and "low tar" in advertising the cigarettes, despite evidence that smokers were getting a product as dangerous as regular cigarettes. The FTC "created this problem by tacitly approving the placement of these figures in the advertisements," Justice Samuel Alito said. Douglas Hallward-Dreimeier, the Justice Department lawyer representing the FTC before the court on Monday, said the cigarette makers "should not be able to benefit from their own misleading of the commission." Justice Stephen Breyer said tobacco companies are like most national advertisers that have to comply with differing state anti-deception ads. "Yet they've survived. There is no evidence even that there is a problem, " Breyer said. The case is Altria Group Inc. v. Good, 07-562. CBS 2 News / KCAL 9 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.csnews.com/csn/cat_management/tobacco/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003871100 http://tobacco.org/news/272144.html "The big litigation threat against the industry these days are these light-cigarette cases,” David Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University in Washington who filed a brief supporting the smokers in the case, told the news organization. "So the industry is hoping they'll get rid of them in one fell swoop." Morgan Stanley tobacco analyst David Adelman said he expects the Supreme Court to "provide a final knockout blow to lights litigation." Convenience Store News Mon, 06 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202425064069&rss=newswire http://tobacco.org/news/272120.html On the opening day of its fall term, the Supreme Court jumped right into a controversial case in which tobacco companies are seeking to block litigation in state courts over health claims made about "light" cigarettes. By the end of Monday's hourlong arguments in Altria Group v. Good, most justices appeared to agree with Altria -- the parent company of Philip Morris -- that the federal cigarette labeling law pre-empts state tort suits like the one before the Court. . . . Olson appeared to convince the Court that the federal labeling law expressly precludes state suits over "smoking and health" issues. If states are allowed to impose different restrictions on cigarette advertising through lawsuits or other means, Olson said, "national advertising becomes impossible." David Frederick of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, who represented the smokers, struggled to persuade the Court that the state suits are about consumer fraud and deception and thus are not pre-empted. Law.com Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.altria.com/media/03_06_03_04_08_good.asp http://tobacco.org/news/272093.html The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case on October 6, 2008. Altria Group, Inc. Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/washington/07scotus.html http://tobacco.org/news/272087.html David C. Frederick, representing the plaintiffs, said the federal law did not pre-empt fraud suits brought under general state consumer protection laws. Mr. Frederick drew on a fractured 1992 Supreme Court decision, Cipollone v. Liggett Group, in which a four-justice plurality said Congress had not meant to pre-empt all fraud suits concerning cigarettes. Mr. Frederick said there was a difference between state laws "specially targeted at the cigarette industry" and "a generally applicable rule against deception," one that would not entangle a jury into "any special inquiry about smoking and health." Only the first sort of law is pre-empted, he said. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. did not seem to be persuaded. "How do you tell whether it's deceptive or not if you don't look at the relationship between smoking and health?" Chief Justice Roberts asked. "They have an advertisement that says light cigarettes are better for you than regular cigarettes. You have to know what the relationship is between smoking and health to determine whether that's deceptive." Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter asked Mr. Frederick what sort of harm remained if the suit was entirely divorced from claims about health. . .. To the frustration of several justices, the government took no position on the central issue of whether the federal law pre-empted the state claims, in so many words. Rather, the solicitor general's office submitted a vigorous brief supporting the plaintiffs limited to a separate argument -- that the trade commission's actions had not pre-empted the suit by implication. . . . Asked repeatedly where the government stood on the effect of the federal law itself, Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, an assistant to the solicitor general, would not bite. "The United States has not taken a position on the bottom line" of the main issue in the case, Mr. Hallward-Driemeier said. New York Times Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/scotus/la-na-scotus7-2008oct07,0,6819370.story http://tobacco.org/news/272086.html Olson said their claim should be tossed out because "Congress wanted one uniform source of regulation of advertising of cigarettes," not different rules established by states and jury verdicts. But a lawyer for the consumers said Congress did not intend to wipe out suits involving deceptive marketing. Lawmakers who set the warning labels in 1969 had "no intention whatsoever to immunize cigarette makers for false statements" about their products, David C. Frederick told the justices. At one point, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. suggested the real culprit was the Federal Trade Commission. This agency oversees the warning labels on cigarettes, he noted, and it allowed the cigarette makers to tout the data from the machine tests indicating "light" cigarettes emitted less tar. "If these figures are misleading, then you should have prohibited them a long time ago," Alito told an FTC lawyer. Los Angeles Times david.savage@latimes.com (David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer) Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.slate.com/id/2201640/ http://tobacco.org/news/272085.html Federal pre-emption law stomps around in big boots. Whereas the states-rights "revolution" once celebrated the ingenuity of the various states when it came to working out complex legal problems, federal pre-emption doctrine strives for "national regulatory uniformity" and the consistency of clear federal laws. Thus, if Congress wants to, it may pre-empt or block state lawsuits in areas into which it plants its federal flag. The Roberts Court has been feeling all kinds of love for federal pre-emption lately, which is why Philip Morris is feeling giddy at the prospect of using it to deliver a "knockout blow" . . . The facts don't look great for the smokers. Altria, Philip Morris' parent company, points to a 1965 statute, the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, which explicitly says that "no requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes." In other words, states can't go after cigarette companies for misleading ads connecting smoking and health. You can always mouth the word cancer, but if you say it aloud, federal pre-emption kicks in, and your lawsuit evaporates. For their part, the smokers contend that this case has nothing to do with advertising pertaining to "smoking and health." They just want to sue big tobacco for being big fat liars. Former Solicitor General Ted Olson, representing Altria, points out that the Maine lawsuit is completely obsessed with "smoking and health" and is an obvious candidate for federal pre-emption. . . . Everyone gets gotcha-ed at least once this morning. Justice John Paul Stevens nabs Olson for citing an Illinois case in which it turns out there was no federal pre-emption. The chief justice triumphantly gets Frederick to admit he misspoke when asserting that the smokers hadn't sought injunctive relief in this case. Then Olson has to explain in his rebuttal that he hadn't exactly abandoned the implied pre-emption argument; he just had better things to do. And when all the smoke clears, it looks to be another good day for big tobacco and another bad day for the folks harmed by it. Big tobacco blames the FTC for its deceptive claims. The FTC blames big tobacco for its deceptive claims. And the Marlboro Man tips his hat and rides off into the sunset. Slate Mon, 06 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT